A plea to Israel: Don’t start the third Lebanon War

The situation has changed on Israel’s northern front, and the prospect of war is coming into focus. The fear in this country is that since Hezbollah and Iran are emerging on top in the Syrian civil war, they will soon turn their weapons against us.

Israel’s leaders sound ready to fight. The recent, full-scale military drill in the north was geared toward “victory” over Hezbollah. About the time that Israel was bombing another weapons depot near Damascus, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN: “We will act to prevent Iran from establishing permanent military bases in Syria for its air, sea and ground forces. We will act to prevent Iran from producing deadly weapons in Syria or in Lebanon for use against us. And we will act to prevent Iran from opening new terror fronts against Israel along our northern border.”

Last week Andrew Exum, a Middle East aide in the Obama administration, wrote in The Atlantic: “[F]or nearly two years now, Israeli military and intelligence officials have been warning every American official who comes through Tel Aviv and Jerusalem that the next war [with Hezbollah] is coming.”

What kind of war will it be? Exum: “very, very ugly. … Hundreds and perhaps thousands of Israelis could die in another conflict.”

Sure. Why not? Hezbollah has an estimated 150,000 missiles ready to strike. And if Iran gets into it? And Syria?

Yet Israel’s leaders don’t sound like they fear the consequences of such a war. They sound like they’re mainly afraid of letting Hezbollah keep its 150,000 missiles, and of letting the cease-fire agreement in Syria go through, which Netanyahu says would bring Iranian weaponry and Iranian-aligned militias near the Israeli Golan Heights. More than being afraid of the prospect of hundreds or thousands of Israeli deaths, they sound afraid of letting Iran establish a “band of control” from its territory through Iraq and Syria and into Lebanon for the transfer of weapons and fighters.

Sooner or later, Hezbollah or Iran or Syria is bound to strike back, at which point Israel can be expected to fight the war it’s been training for and talking about. You have to wonder if Netanyahu and the military brass are deliberately trying to provoke our enemies to the north into hitting back, so they can then claim that Israel has “no choice” but to fight another “war of self-defense.”

But what if we didn’t go on bombing and killing our enemies to the north? Would they attack? Most Israelis, it seems to me, think they would. They base this view on the growing masses of arms held by Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, the brutality all of them have shown in war, and their political or Islamist ideology that marks Israel out for destruction. All this, according to the seeming Israeli consensus, adds up to an inevitable attack from the north meant to cripple if not crush Israel, which makes an Israeli “preemptive” attack appealing.

That’s where we stand. In my view, though, this consensus is the product of Israeli paranoia. It’s the product of the fear and aggression that rule the national political mentality, and that get so many Israeli soldiers and civilians killed for no reason, not to mention Arab soldiers and civilians. The idea that Hezbollah, Iran and Syria are itching for a war with Israel, that they’re just waiting to attack, is a delusion. Absent Israeli provocation, such an attack would have no parallel in the world or in history. Yet Israelis seem ready to fight on account of this fear, and if they’re not ready now, they will be as soon as one or two Israelis are killed in the counter-attack for our 103rd or 104th or whatever number bombing in Lebanon or Syria, and the government, media and right-wing “street” are roaring for battle.

The reason the Israeli consensus is a delusion, the reason Hezbollah, Iran and Syria don’t want war with Israel, is because the weak don’t want war with the strong, especially when the weak have been getting their heads handed to them by the strong for years and decades on end. Whatever arms our enemies to the north have, Israel has many times better ones, and our “qualitative edge” is only growing.

“If Hezbollah’s capabilities have grown linearly, ours have grown exponentially, in intelligence, in targets and in the ability to attack,” Israeli Maj. Gen. Tamir Hayman, commander of the military drill in the north, told AP.

But what better proof is there of Israel’s clear military superiority over Hezbollah, Iran and Syria than the long, long list of Israeli attacks on them that went unanswered. In addition to those mentioned above, Israel has destroyed a Syrian nuclear facility. It has killed five Iranian nuclear scientists. It flies spy planes, drones and balloons over Lebanon continuously. And it has made the Golan Heights part of Israel, when the Syrians, not to mention the rest of the world, say it rightly belongs to Syria.

Has Hezbollah, Iran or Syria ever destroyed an Israeli nuclear facility? Do they bomb Israeli weapons convoys and depots ever, let alone 100 times in five years? Do they kill Israeli generals and nuclear scientists? Do they fly spy planes, drones and balloons over Israel? Do they conquer Israeli territory? None of these things is even imaginable; they wouldn’t dare try. And why? Because they respect Israel? Because they believe Israel has the right to attack them but they don’t have the right to hit back? No. They don’t hit back, except on very rare occasions, because they’re scared stiff of Israel’s power, and rightly so.

So why, after winning a six-year war that was awfully costly to them in money, weaponry and blood, would Hezbollah, Iran and Syria want to bring Israel down on their heads now, of all times?

Some make the point that fear of Israel didn’t stop Hezbollah from attacking it in 2006 and starting the Second Lebanon War. This is true. Hezbollah started that war by capturing and killing two Israeli soldiers, and eight more died chasing the attackers across the Lebanese border, which put the war in motion. In the end, 1,800 Lebanese were killed, compared to some 160 Israelis. Much of Lebanon was devastated; in Israel a few apartment buildings were hit. A couple of weeks after the fighting ended, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah admitted his mistake on Lebanese TV: “We did not think, even one percent, that the capture [of the two soldiers] would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 … that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.” Since then, Nasrallah appears to have learned his lesson.

Still, the looming triumph of Iran and its allies in the Syrian civil war, the feared advent of Iranian-aligned militias and weaponry near the Israeli border with Syria, the prospect of an Iranian-controlled “corridor” all the way to Lebanon – the sense that Iran is building an empire on Israel’s doorstep – has Israelis afraid that they’re next in line. (The fear-mongering and saber-rattling by Netanyahu, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and others, of course, stokes their anxiety.)

But if you look at the tremendous and growing imbalance of power between the two sides, and add to it the long, ongoing record of Israeli military humiliations of these enemies, isn’t it likely that Hezbollah, Iran and Syria intend to build up their forces not to attack Israel, but to deter Israel from attacking them? Isn’t it likely that their weapons, at least with regard to Israel, are there for defensive, not offensive, purposes?

The weak do not attack the strong and instigate suicidal wars for the sake of ideology or religious belief; the absence of Hezbollah and Iranian missiles raining down on Israel, even in the wake of continual Israeli attacks dating back long before the Syrian civil war, is proof of that.

However, this does not mean the strong can blast away with impunity at the weak forever. In March, Israeli jets bombed weaponry in Syria that was destined for Hezbollah, and the Syrian army fired antiaircraft missiles at the jets. They missed; if they’d hit those jets, the Third Lebanon War might have begun right there. In 2015, Hezbollah killed two Israeli soldiers on the border a week and a half after Israel had killed six Hezbollah fighters and an Iranian general. In 2012, Hezbollah was likely behind the killing of five Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, which was evidently payback for Israel’s lethal acts against Hezbollah and Iran.

If Israel continues such acts – and Netanyahu pledged at the UN to widen them – then it probably is merely a matter of time until Israelis again get killed in retaliation, and then that “very, very ugly” war will probably be upon us.

So why continue? Why go on attacking enemies who have no logical reason to attack you, and whose relatively meager resistance shows that actually they are not looking for a fight? Why provoke a war when you obviously have your enemies, whatever their ideology, well and truly deterred?

I raised these questions recently on Facebook, and at length the answer I got from a couple of very intelligent, well-informed, politically moderate Jewish friends was this: primal Jewish fear. Fear of annihilation. Fear of threats of annihilation. Fear of waiting while our enemies get stronger, get closer.

I understand. That fear has a long history behind it. But that history is over, and has been for decades, at least for Israel. That fear is born out of a memory of Jewish powerlessness and persecution, but Israel is the opposite of the powerless, persecuted Jews of history. Israel is the colossus of the Middle East. If you go by their actions instead of their words, Israel has its enemies scared to death. And everybody seems to know it except the Jews.

It’s time to let go of this primal Jewish fear, at least as far as Israel is concerned. It’s an anachronism. In light of Israel’s awesome power compared to that of its enemies, it’s irrational. But worst of all, it’s deadly – for Israelis and others. Our minds are so full of this old, post-traumatic fear of being attacked by our enemies, terrified as they are of us, that there’s no room left for the timely, healthy fear of the consequences of a war that we start by continually attacking them.

We have to stop this. We Israelis go to war much, much too readily. We are putting our children’s lives in danger –and the lives of lots of other children, too– for nothing but our misplaced fears. If we’re going to be afraid of something, let’s be afraid of that.

About Larry Derfner

Larry Derfner is an op-ed contributor to Haaretz and the author of the book "No Country for Jewish Liberals" (Just World Books, April 2017). He was a columnist and feature writer for the Jerusalem Post, as well as the correspondent in Israel for the U.S. News and World Report, for many years. He wrote feature articles for the Sunday Times of London during the second intifada, and has been writing for American Jewish publications since 1990.

“Miko Peled tells meeting at Labour Party conference Israel will do everything it can to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM”

EXCERPT:
Peled said the Israelis ‘are terrified of the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn being prime minister. They are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn from being prime minister.’

He said it was up to Labour members to stop that happening. ‘Jeremy Corbyn is an opportunity for Britain that, if it gets lost, won’t come back for a very long time.’

“The meeting exposed cracks within the ranks of Labour’s Jewish membership with one audience member calling for the Jewish Labour Movement, which has traditionally supported Israel, to be expelled from the party.”

I think there is some reason for Israel to believe that Hezbollah and Iran’s policy is one of war. And that is that is their repeatedly stated open policy:

Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran: “If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime … if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.” (2000)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.” (2001)

Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of Hezbollah: “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” (2002)

Nasrallah: “Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: ‘Death to Israel.’” (2005)

Yahya Rahim Safavi, the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps: “With God’s help the time has come for the Zionist regime’s death sentence.” (2008)

Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, Khamenei’s representative to the Moustazafan Foundation: “We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary to replace [sic] Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust.” (2010)

Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of the Basij paramilitary force: “We recommend them [the Zionists] to pack their furniture and return to their countries. And if they insist on staying, they should know that a time while arrive when they will not even have time to pack their suitcases.” (2011)

Khamenei: “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.” (2012)

Ahmad Alamolhoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts: “The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel.” (2013)

Nasrallah: “The elimination of Israel is not only a Palestinian interest. It is the interest of the entire Muslim world and the entire Arab world.” (2013)

Hojateleslam Alireza Panahian, the advisor to Office of the Supreme Leader in Universities: “The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base.” (2013)

Hojatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei’s representative in the Revolutionary Guard: “The Zionist regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to its destruction.” (2013)

Khamenei: “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” (2014)

Hossein Salami, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: “We will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat.” (2014)

Salami: “Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth.” (2014)

Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: “The issue of Israel’s destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it …” (2014)

Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: “The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime … We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region’s geopolitics.” (2015)

Moreover in fighting Arab nationalism had to stand alone. In fighting Iranian control in the region Israel stands with Saudi Arabia and Egypt as full partners. Even if it made no sense to fight a war, the long term value to Israel’s long term viability of being included in an Arab military alliance is so high that it would still make sense for Israel.

The people forcing this confrontation is Iran not Israel. What are they doing in Syria at all? What are they doing in Lebanon at all? You are so incredibly opposed to occupation. Funding an army more powerful than the Lebanese army so as to render the government of Lebanon unable to control its own foreign policy is something that maybe you would want to object to.

You neglected to note that after seizing them during the war it launched on 5 June 1967, Israel is still belligerently and illegally occupying Lebanon’s Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba hills as well as Syria’s Golan Heights from which it expelled 150,000 Syrians.

The clam was that there was no reason to believe that Hezbollah Iran had an intention of hostile military acts. I listed a bunch of quotes where their leadership says they have such an intention. They have a stated intention to start a war. What you are giving sound like reasons you think it would be a good idea for Iran and Hezbollah to start a war. Which is fine, but isn’t evidence they don’t intend to start one.

The obvious implication of my response is that if Israel truly wanted to diminish the possibility of war, it would end its belligerent/illegal 50 year occupation of Lebanon’s Shebba Farms/Kfarshuba hills and Syria’s Golan Heights.

I also remind you of the 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which offers Israel full recognition as a sovereign state (per UNSC Res. 242, i.e., within its June 4/67 boundaries with possible minor and mutually agreed land swaps), exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if Israel complies with international law and its previous commitments. Fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut initiative does not demand the return of all Palestinian refugees. In accordance with Israel’s pledge given to the UNGA in 1949 and by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol to abide by UNGA Res. 194 regarding the then 800,000 Palestinian refugees as a precondition for admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice), the Arab League’s Initiative “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to help pursue the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem…”

Also:
“[Hezbollah’s Sheikh] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has made it clear that Hezbollah would not disrupt such an agreement if it is accepted by Palestinians and Hamas has repeatedly indicated its willingness to negotiate in these terms.” (“On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon” by Noam Chomsky, Znet, August 23, 2006 – http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=10811)

Notably, the Beirut Arab Summit Initiative has also been adopted by the Organization of Islamic States which includes Iran. (Akiva Eldar, “What will happen if Israel ‘defeats’ Obama?” – Haaretz, 1 June 2009)

“…in May 2003, a conference of the member states’ foreign ministers [of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation] in Tehran ‘reaffirmed its support to, and adoption of, the Arab peace initiative for resolving the issue of Palestine and the Middle-East.’ Indeed, an information leaflet about the peace initiative posted on the Arab League’s official website shows the flags of all countries that endorse the proposal, including those of Libya, Syria — and Iran.” (“Why is Israel so afraid of the Arab Peace Initiative?, by Raphael Ahren, The Times of Israel, 18 June 2013)

Also, In its revised Charter, April, 2017, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders. Regrettably, but not surprisingly, Israel promptly rejected the Hamas overture instead of using it to open a dialogue.

The original question was whether Iran’s policy was one of belligerency. You are now addressing issues of what Israel could do to change the policy. Which is fine but its another topic. Let’s stop here and not get side tracked. Iran’s current openly stated policy is seeking war with Israel. Hezbollah’s currently openly stated policy is seeking war with Israel.

It might be true that if Israel surrenders to Hezbollah demands than Hezbollah is less likely to attack Israel. Not clear. Remember the withdraw from Southern Lebanon was based on that calculation and it didn’t entirely work though it did diminish hostility somewhat. Conversely the introduction of Sunni fanaticism to Syria has made Hezbollah much less hostile towards Israel. Looked at objectively the most successful peace process regarding Shia seems to be ISIS like groups. The Kurds create a nice potential counter threat where Israel can do to Iran what Iran is doing with Hezbollah. I think that avenue is the most promising for diminishing the likelihood of proxy wars getting out of hand. I simply don’t believe the people of Lebanon have endured what they have in their fights with Israel over that tiny piece of land, which even the UN agrees is Syrian not Lebanese. So I think Sheeba Farms is an excuse not the real reason.

As for the 2002 Peace proposal that would obviously change things. But it could make things a lot worse. A sovereign but incredibly weak state could lead to an Iranian army in the West Bank. The original proposal was a good deal, the final one was not. It has been repeatedly been rejected by Israel and in this latest government openly rejected. Israel has determined that peace at that cost is not worth the cost.

There is almost always some degree of surrender an enemy will accept so as to arrive at peace. Same in the other direction Iran could avoid this war by giving into far less serious demands from Israel. Neither is going to at this point, so they disco. Moreover in this contest Israel gets to be in a military alliance with Egypt and Saudi Arabia which is such a huge positive its hard to see what the advantage would be for Israel in making a peace with Iran. Long term if Iran is helping Israel create a warm peace with the Arabs that’s worth far more than whatever damage Israel takes from Iran. Iran’s strategy of uniting the Arabs with it via. anti-Zionism is accomplishing the opposite. Sunnis being forced to choose if they are more worried about Jews or Shia are voting Shia and slowly aligning themselves openly with Jews. Why would Israel be interested in cutting off its greatest diplomatic success since the 1990s?

As for Hamas statement etc… I have to agree with Netanyahu. If you don’t agree to Israel as a Jewish state, you aren’t agreeing to the formula of two states for two people. That’s not a peace offer based on a two state solution at all. There has been a change in language with respect to Hamas, but not a change in policy. Some other language might be acceptable through negotiation and I do agree with the Israeli left that negotiations with Hamas should start. But I don’t think there is a reasonable Hamas offer on the table.

You conveniently leave out the FACT that will all those words have been uttered, albeit with modifications as pointed out by Misterioso below, Israel has uttered none such words but has instead acted out those words in order to fulfill them in the reverse direction. In the case of the Palestinians, Israel is coming ever closer to their destruction with its dual policies of Apartheid/Hafrada and incremental genocide.

@JeffB
My point is that while Iran or Hezbollah may have pronounced those words against Israel, and Israel being the “peaceful” “country” it is not having uttered those words, the fact on the ground is that Israel has actually attacked Hezbollah several times & has been goading the US for many years now to attack Iran.

And closer to home Israel only talks about the destruction of the Palestinians AND carries it out.

In other words, contrary to your argument, Israel, NOT Iran nor Hezbollah, IS the greatest threat to peace & stability in the Middle East.

OK good. Now we’ve moved beyond the claim that they have peaceful intent. We can both agree that Iran / Hezbollah openly stated policy is one of war.

I would agree that Israel is more aggressive in large scale actions than either Hezbollah or Iran. I would disagree that on small scale actions that’s true. More importantly though I’d disagree with you that this has anything to do with peaceful intentions. Iran provides a wonderful example of this. Before the fall of the Shah Iran had a peaceful relationship with Israel. When Iran decided to change the relationship it got hostile. Same as Lebanon. Lebanon had a peaceful relationship until the 1970s. Egypt provides an example in the other direction. When it was hostile it experienced multiple wars, since deciding to no longer be hostile its experienced none.

Israel’s position is to be aggressive towards those countries with hostile intent and hostile actions. Israel is very able to live in peace. What it does break out from is low level conflict. Iran and Hezbollah would like a situation of low level actions that doesn’t escalate similar to say China’s relationship with Taiwan and Russia.

One can argue whether permitting low level attacks and not escalating to full scale wars is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is the right move strategically. Israel should not have as a goal that its enemies are able to safely fund operations against it at no meaningful risk to themselves. The Alamo was objectively no big deal. America’s huge over reaction to it, has kept that border peaceful for 150 years. Mexico in both WW1 and WW2 rejected an alliance with the Germans similar to the one Iran offers Lebanon, because the Mexicans were terrified of the likely consequences. They understand the war with Germany may come and go, but they’ll always share a border with the USA (lots of guns, very long memory). There is no reason that Israel shouldn’t create a state where Lebanon is similarly terrified of the consequences of attacking Israel.

That seems to me a route to peace through strength. I’d prefer that wasn’t necessary and Lebanon just wanted peace. But they don’t and Israel can’t change that at reasonable cost.

Of course there will be War.
A religious ideology that sanctions the killing of, not just opponents, but any or all non-members of its lunatic cult on the grounds that they might pose a threat will always be at War. Add the fact that this particular cult takes theft as a fundamental, exclusive right and there will be perpetual War until either the cult is quashed or all non-members are killed or enslaved.
I have sometimes cited the ravings of such as Ovadia Yosef as examples of overblown murderous rhetoric but had never considered taking them seriously until viewing this lecture by HaRav David Bar-Hayim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2155&v=6cePM18Yvp8

In beautifully modulated cadence he lays it all out referencing scripture to back the thesis that all non-Jews are to be treated as snakes – killed because they might be venomous. He then teaches us that the sages ruled that theft of non-Jewish property (by a Jew) need not be restored to its owner because a Jew will use his ill-gotten gains for the benefit of humanity.

There is a massive flaw in this primitive reasoning of course and I thought it confined to the lunatic orthodox fringes. The above video makes it chillingly clear that this ideology is more mainstream that I had ever dreamed however. It will be interesting to see if any posters choose to defend this psychopath.

“A religious ideology that sanctions the killing of, not just opponents, but any or all non-members of its lunatic cult” brewer
As a former member of this cult I can tell you that this is precisely what I was taught in their synagogues by the priests. That is why I left them and I recommend that they all leave the cult and join me in a peaceful and universalist religion (Christianity).

“As a former member of this cult I can tell you that this is precisely what I was taught in their synagogues by the priests.”

They’re called “Rabbis”. They are most assuredly not “priests”.

And as far as being a “former member of this cult”, what date was your baptism into the new faith and new life? You’ll want to carry your baptismal certificate with you, in case you are perceived as still a “member of this cult”.

Thank you Catalan. As you will probably know, I have always leveled my criticism at “Zionism” and its political supporters and studiously avoided lumping Judaism in with it.
I can’t tell you how deeply this lecture has affected my current thinking. Although I now have no affiliation, I grew up in the Christian tradition which taught me not to even imagine that other belief systems could be – there is no other word for it – intrinsically evil. I had thought that no matter the creed or color, a basic humanity linked us all. HaRav David Bar-Hayim has dispersed that notion.
I am still reeling.

Christianity has plenty of people who would similarly deny common humanity. Do a google search on Kinism (white only form of Reformed/Presbyterian Christianity). You’ll mostly find responsible Reformed pastors refuting it, though note that none denying it wasn’t a fairly big substrain they were dealing with on the Christian Reformed right.

JeffB: “A rabbinic court doesn’t mean as much as you might think.”
I have always assumed they are equivalent to Sharia courts – ruling on ecclesiastical matters and disputes between parties who consent to their authority. Is that a fair assessment? To what extent are their rulings binding on all believers? How fragmented is Judaism?

A Rabbi’s authority extends to anyone who asks them an opinion on an issue. You ask about that issue you are bound by the answer but you can take it to a court. The appropriate court would be the appeal. Which court is appropriate depends on the rabbi asked. Believers essentially choose which court. Same way that in a Christian in choosing a church would choose the Session that would decide a case (in conservative that practice discipline).

They are not universally binding.

I am very curious as to where you, JonS and other pro-Zionist posters stand with regard to David Bar-Hayim’s interpretation of the Torah and History.

I’m not a Rabbi. I’m not qualified. And I haven’t studied the source material enough to have an informed opinion.

I have not yet seen you dismiss his dicta. I can say unequivocally that I find his interpretation repugnant and his History risible. Can you? How widespread is this notion that divine law is selective, i.e one law for Jews, another for Gentiles?

That’s universal in Judaism. Judaism holds that God makes different covenants with different people. Besides some very basics (called the Noahide laws) that are universal each covenant can be quite individual to the people. So for example Japanese do an Omairi involving a bell when they approach a shrine. There is nothing in Jewish law about bells. Jews take no position on whether God did or did not command that to the Japanese. We know our laws we have no idea what he wants the Japanese to do.

To me it seems a denial of mono-theism – there is one God for Jews and another (or none) for the rest.

You are conflating one law and one God.

One disastrous outcome of that would be the legitimization of anti-Semitism for it is illogical to oppose a group purely for its blood or lineage, less so to oppose a group that claims divine right to steal from or kill non-members.

Jews don’t claim a divine right to steal or kill non-members.

One law for all is to me, the very foundation of Humanist thought and progress – I had considered it axiomatic.

JeffB.
None of the links you provide offer any such prohibition. In fact they all give carte blanche by the simple trick of defining the type of War. The only prohibition without qualification seems to be against the destruction of fruit trees and poisoning of wells – a prohibition that is breached almost daily in the West Bank and Gaza.
The Wikipedia entry contains this:
“In 2007, Mordechai Eliyahu, the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel wrote that “there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings”.[60] His son, Shmuel Eliyahu chief rabbi of Safed, called for the “carpet bombing” of the general area from which the Kassams were launched, to stop rocket attacks on Israel, saying “This is a message to all leaders of the Jewish people not to be compassionate with those who shoot [rockets] at civilians in their houses.” he continued, “If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they don’t stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000. Even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.”[60]

An influential Chabad Lubavitch Hassid rabbi Manis Friedman in 2009 was quoted as saying: “I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral. The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children””

Your remarks on the Rabbinic courts serve only to cloud the issue and I am alarmed at this:“I’m not a Rabbi. I’m not qualified. And I haven’t studied the source material enough to have an informed opinion.”
– since I asked you where you personally stand with regard to David Bar-Hayim’s interpretation of the Torah and History. That is a pretty simple question that requires you to set aside Rabbinical guidance and confines the source material to the dicta found in the video which I presume you have watched and which is notable for its clarity.
I can only conclude that you are hedging or so deeply immersed in a cult that you do not feel qualified to consult your own reasoning – the very definition of cultish behavior. This answer indicates that I should take David Bar-Hayim at his word for he is so qualified. We have therefore not advanced this discussion because his pronouncement of the written word conflicts with you statement: “Jews don’t claim a divine right to steal or kill non-members” – he says very clearly that they do.

“God makes different covenants with different people”
Well there we have David Bar-Hayim’s philosophy in a nutshell. Precisely what you have argued against. One law for Jews, different laws for others.

This post has only served to increase my alarm at the role Judaism has in Israel’s abrogation of Universal Human Rights and disregard for the Laws of War. My only positive takeaway is an improved understanding as to why Zionists constantly accuse others of barbarity while utterly denying their own – God made a different deal.

The MO one is being quoted by the red cross. I think you are seeing what you want to see.

Your remarks on the Rabbinic courts serve only to cloud the issue and I am alarmed at this:
“I’m not a Rabbi. I’m not qualified. And I haven’t studied the source material enough to have an informed opinion.”
– since I asked you where you personally stand with regard to David Bar-Hayim’s interpretation of the Torah and History.

Well yes. Brewer is taking stuff out of context and making statements which don’t make sense. That one I’m qualified to argue against.

David Bar-Hayim is considering things in context and making sophisticated arguments. Those I’m not qualified to judge.

He is after all a direct student of Yosef Qafih and a rabbinic court judge. I’m just a normal Jewish guy. No question he is vastly more authoritative than I am. You are less authoritative than I am. He is vastly more knowledgeable than I am. You are less. Etc…

That is a pretty simple question that requires you to set aside Rabbinical guidance and confines the source material to the dicta found in the video which I presume you have watched and which is notable for its clarity.

Halacha is all about rabbinic guidance. There is no content to Jewish law other than guidance. What you are asking for would be like asking me to analyze rules of evidence in Alabama as opposed to Connecticut without reference to judiciary decisions. The way the courts rule on evidence are the rules of evidence for USA courts. The stuff he is quoting are what other rabbis said in centuries past.

That being said your interpretation of what he says is wrong. For example he has qualifications like they need to be a plausible threat, there needs to be a question of survival in the context of the war, etc… You aren’t including those qualifiers in your interpretation of his statements. Take out the qualifiers and that interpretation is definitely wrong. Include the qualifiers and maybe he’s right, maybe he is wrong we are now over my head.

I can only conclude that you are hedging or so deeply immersed in a cult that you do not feel qualified to consult your own reasoning – the very definition of cultish behavior. This answer indicates that I should take David Bar-Hayim at his word for he is so qualified.

David Bar-Hayim is qualified. Whether he is right is a different question. Whether your interpretation of him is right is a 3rd question. As I mentioned he is most well known for his position on legumes not military conduct. If his view starts getting cited then we’ll hear responses from other rabbis who are also qualified. That’s the way Judaism works. It is a series of standards which are arrived at in conversation.

Right now what we have is a non-bonding opinion, no different in religious status than an editorial in a newspaper. If other rabbis agree then it becomes a candidate to become law. If a consensus is arrived at it becomes law.

We have therefore not advanced this discussion because his pronouncement of the written word conflicts with you statement: “Jews don’t claim a divine right to steal or kill non-members” – he says very clearly that they do.

No he doesn’t.

“God makes different covenants with different people”
Well there we have David Bar-Hayim’s philosophy in a nutshell. Precisely what you have argued against. One law for Jews, different laws for others.

You were objecting to specific claims about killing non-Jews. That’s not precisely what I have argued against it isn’t even remotely similar.

How do you jump from: Angela doesn’t think she’s Ben’s boss to Angela thinks she can murder Ben?

This post has only served to increase my alarm at the role Judaism has in Israel’s abrogation of Universal Human Rights and disregard for the Laws of War. My only positive takeaway is an improved understanding as to why Zionists constantly accuse others of barbarity while utterly denying their own – God made a different deal.

You don’t have an improved understanding. You have a bizarre misunderstanding. And it is beginning to sound intentional.

You want to understand Judaism you are going to have to chill out and try and challenge some of your Evangelical Christian (not sure what religion you are but you’ve absorbed their hermeneutic) ideas about scripture. What you are arguing is so heinous is something a knowledgeable Catholic would comfortably agree with regarding their magisterium. A Methodist would mostly agree. An Episcopalian would mostly agree. A good deal of what you are so freaked out about isn’t even all that unusual with regard to Judaism.

But you are going to have to decide whether you want to discuss this honestly or not. There are tons of really good source material on David Duke’s website if you want to grab Jewish material out of context and quote it in a way that’s misleading. If you want an honest assessment of what Judaism believes you are going to need to stop jumping to conclusions half cocked based on disliking either Israel or Jews.

Obviously it is time for us to desist. It is useless for rationality to argue with the theism and obeisance to religious authority that rules your thinking. If you had stated at the very beginning that you are incapable of even expressing your personal opinion without reference to Biblical scholars we would not have come even this far. To conclude I will say this.

I espouse no religion unless you count Pantheism which I interpret as the rule of nature. That is to say I believe that theism is simply one of the primitive attempts to understand the nature of the universe and it has failed in this endeavor. Its ability to predict reactions in the real World is far outpaced by a simple biologist who can explain leprosy and predict its course without reference to the supernatural. Embracing theism should surely be undertaken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Yet you do without qualm and you base your whole political scheme on it. What is more, you do so while acknowledging that you are not qualified to comment on matters concerning belief.
So finally, unwilling or unable to debate without reference to arcane theistic authority that you confess to not understand, you resort to the anti-Semite smear.

“This post has only served to increase my alarm at the role Judaism has in Israel’s abrogation of Universal Human Rights and disregard for the Laws of War.”

“Brewer”, you’ve got to face reality! When a certain group is the most powerful, most unified, growing explosively, and controls most of the earth’s surface and seas, they can pretty much do what they want, with few repercussions.

JeffB.
I am not in the habit of posting the ravings of radicals for the very reason you reference – all sects have their fringe elements and it is an error to attribute their views to the majority.
I posted the lecture by HaRav David Bar-Hayim because this was the first occasion I had come across what appears to be a mainstream, calm and seemingly reasonable voice explaining, with detailed references to scripture, why Rabbis do not oppose the bombing of civilians.
Wikipedia tells us that HaRav David Bar-Hayim is:“an Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education……., he initially studied in Yeshivat HaKotel, and subsequently in Merkaz Harav Kook in Jerusalem. He studied under Rabbi Moshe Zuriel, and received rabbinic ordination from Rabbi Yosef Kapach.
For a number of years, Bar-Hayim taught Talmud, Halakha, and Jewish philosophy in Yeshivat Nahalath Tzvi……In 2006, Bar-Hayim founded the Shilo Institute for the research, elucidation, and dissemination of the Torah of Israel…….Recently, Bar-Hayim established the Beth HaVa’ad rabbinical court to focus on actualizing the Torah of Israel and serve as an address for gentiles, particularly the growing Noahide community.”

I have yet to establish what position these institutions and individuals occupy on the spectrum of Israeli thought but I think that question is important and one that this forum should seriously consider.
The “whataboutery” of some obscure Christian sect is a lame, irrelevant response. David Bar-Hayim appears to be mainstream, the audience was totally acquiescent, the Biblical references appear to totally support his argument. What can you tell us about him and the extent to which his view is reflected in mainstream Israeli thought?
Here he is expounding some widely held shibboleths (Mark Twain, Joan Peters etc):

A rabbinic court doesn’t mean as much as you might think. His level of authority is about what a lead pastor in a midsized church. Not nothing but you are way overestimating his level of influence. What he’s most known for is the fight regarding the kosher status of peanut butter and other such dishes not military doctrine.

“Except that Rabbis do oppose the bombing of civilians. ”
I have not seen evidence of this. Can you link me please.

“A rabbinic court doesn’t mean as much as you might think.”
I have always assumed they are equivalent to Sharia courts – ruling on ecclesiastical matters and disputes between parties who consent to their authority. Is that a fair assessment? To what extent are their rulings binding on all believers? How fragmented is Judaism?

I am very curious as to where you, JonS and other pro-Zionist posters stand with regard to David Bar-Hayim’s interpretation of the Torah and History. I have not yet seen you dismiss his dicta. I can say unequivocally that I find his interpretation repugnant and his History risible. Can you? How widespread is this notion that divine law is selective, i.e one law for Jews, another for Gentiles?
To me it seems a denial of mono-theism – there is one God for Jews and another (or none) for the rest. That conclusion is at odds with Islam, Christianity and even Pantheism. It calls for a radical re-assessment of attitudes towards Judaism by those groups does it not? One disastrous outcome of that would be the legitimization of anti-Semitism for it is illogical to oppose a group purely for its blood or lineage, less so to oppose a group that claims divine right to steal from or kill non-members.

One law for all is to me, the very foundation of Humanist thought and progress – I had considered it axiomatic.

I confess that until now I’ve never heard of Rabbi David Bar Haim. I suppose that what’s so troubling is that he’s not screaming and foaming at the mouth, he speaks calmly , with a pleasant Australian accent. He quotes the Knesset Hagdolah, written in the 17th century by Rabbi Haim Benveniste, in the Ottoman Empire.

Jewish sources are are a virtual ocean. You can find arguments for nearly every point of view, and its opposite. For bigotry and racism and also for justice peace and equality. It so happens that just yesterday, on Yom Kippur , Jews all over the world read and studied the Book of Jonah, a little gem of a book in the Bible. In the book it’s the non-Jews whose behavior is exemplary and the one Jewish character is Jonah himself whose behavior is, shall we say, problematic. One of the lessons we can learn from it is a rejection of bigotry and racism.

I’m not dodging your question. There’s a lot of racism and fascist tendencies in Israeli society. (Hardly unique in today’s world, unfortunately…)And there are those of us who haven’t given up on the struggle for peace, for democracy, for social justice.

JonS.
Thanks for the reply from which I deduce that you and I might have been able to advance understanding a little further than JeffB and I managed.
Yes, it is in part ” he speaks calmly , with a pleasant Australian accent.” that so impacted on me (an antipodean). As I said, I have never quoted the likes of Ovadia Josef as typical (except to remind Islamophobes that intemperate rhetoric exists in fundamentalists of all stripes).
It is the contrast between his urbane, reasonable-sounding delivery and the content of his address that gave me a jolt. I don’t agree that one needs to be “qualified” (as Jeff asserts) to understand that what he says and backs up with copious scriptural references conflicts with contemporary notions of equality and Humanist values.
I have had a quick look and bookmarked your link. Indeed there is some very good and universal sounding stuff that I can readily endorse. One question troubles me however, thanks to David Bar-Hayim. When a Rabbi makes a pronouncement regarding Human Rights, who does he mean by phrases such as “the people”? Is it humankind or the Jewish people?
I think it is misunderstanding that distinction that leads many of us to argue at cross purposes.
I think you may understand the nub of my question better than Jeff and why I think it important that this forum discuss it.
Many of us are constantly astonished at the dis-proportionality of responses Israel makes to resistance and its refusal to acknowledge all that proceeds from the Nakba. David Bar-Hayim provides an answer that stems from a belief system. He states quite clearly that distinct rights and privileges apply to believers. Suddenly one understands why well-meaning people from both sides can arrive at an impasse. The sides have opposing, ingrained senses of what constitutes right and wrong – what the other side asserts is incomprehensible to the other because there is no shared sense of ultimate and all encompassing morality.
That is why I think the question as to how deeply this alternative reality is embedded in the Israeli (not necessarily religious) psyche is an important one.
As it stands, I now feel that in discussing what I consider inhumane in Israel’s policies, I must not only point to barbarity but also explain why it is barbaric to people whose World-view is shaped by a belief system and culture that simply does not accept the universal application of such concepts.
My previous assumption that “hey, we are all Humanists here” has been called into question by a respected Rabbi and teacher who clearly differs.
I think I do understand the disputatious nature of Judaism. A Jewish friend (now long dead) once said: “You have seen pictures of bearded sages with the scrolls – they are arguing!” It made quite an impact on my thinking at the time as I was accustomed to thinking of a “Church” as a monolithic doctrinal structure.
No doubt David Bar-Hayim has detractors within the religious community. My interest lies, not so much in them but in the extent to which these ideas have permeated society in general in the way that the Christian tradition, despite my atheism (Pantheism if you prefer) has permeated the very basic building blocks of my philosophy.

LARRY DERFNER- “Some make the point that fear of Israel didn’t stop Hezbollah from attacking it in 2006 and starting the Second Lebanon War. This is true. Hezbollah started that war by capturing and killing two Israeli soldiers, and eight more died chasing the attackers across the Lebanese border, which put the war in motion.”

Hezbollah has never started a war with Israel. After years of ongoing Israeli provocations including kidnappings, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers to use for a prisoner exchange. Israel seized upon this as a pretext for an invasion of Lebanon long in planning. Nasrallah’s comment merely indicated that that Hezbollah didn’t anticipate this tit for tat being used as a pretext for an all out invasion and destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure. Noam Chomsky comments:

“The standard Western version is that the July 2006 invasion was justified by legitimate outrage over capture of two Israeli soldiers at the border. The posture is cynical fraud. The US and Israel, and the West generally, have little objection to capture of soldiers, or even to the far more severe crime of kidnapping civilians (or of course to killing civilians). That had been Israeli practice in Lebanon for many years, and no one ever suggested that Israel should therefore be invaded and largely destroyed.” (Noam Chomsky) https://chomsky.info/20060819/

Absolutely correct Keith. All Israeli military leave was canceled three months before Hezbollah grabbed two IDF who were, if memory serves, over the line.
That it is militarily possible to launch such an attack at short notice is total fiction. “Kidnapping” soldiers is a quaint use of the term!
The lecture by HaRav David Bar-Hayim above explains the situation very clearly. Unprovoked attacks are not only sanctioned, they are mandated by Jewish religious doctrine because all non-Jewish are a threat – per se. Carpet and nuclear bombing of civilians is perfectly fine because “we are right!”
How can one reason with an ideology that claims a God-given right to kill innocents ? Hitherto I had thought this the preserve of fundamentalist loonies but when one listens to this fellow’s reasoning one realizes the problem is in the heart of a moral scheme that pays no heed to universal concepts of justice and humanity.
I am coming closer to Gilad Atzmon’s view that the problem lies within Judaism itself, not just its offshoot, Zionism. When one listens to HaRav David Bar-Hayim, Zionism begins to appear as the inevitable expression of a deeply xenophobic belief system.

LARRY DERFNER- ” In my view, though, this consensus is the product of Israeli paranoia.”

Paranoia with a purpose. Manufactured paranoia. Paranoia at the heart of the Zionist ideology which portrays non-Jews as eternal and irrational Jew-haters and murders. Israel is a militaristic warfare state and aims to stay that way.

Well, I have every confidence in my Zionist brethren (sure I did, from the first minute they told me about it) but I would want a somewhat larger country with a hell of a lot more people and resources before I started down that road. Oh, and a way of keeping the population in place, so they can’t say “daul-passport, gotta go” And a better geographic spot. And a way of compelling the diaspora to do what Zionism requires, not just what pleases them.
Oh well, can’t have everything, and enough chutzpah makes up for anything. Oh, sorry, just musing.

Keith, at the time the only Lebanese prisoner Israel held was Samir Kuntar, who was a monster – I don’t recognize anybody’s right to do anything to free him. And the toll by the end of the incident wasn’t two soldiers but 10. I think it was quite a provocation. It doesn’t justify the extent of Israel’s war by any means, but I do say that Hezbollah started that war.

Derfner: “Keith, at the time the only Lebanese prisoner Israel held was Samir Kuntar …”

At least Nassam Nisr was held by Israel, too, and released in 2008.

Derfner: “… but I do say that Hezbollah started that war.”

And I say that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and still holds the Sheeba farms occupied in clear violation of Sec Res 425. But if you call this cross border raid starting a “war” I would like to know how many times Israel has started a “war”.

“the only Lebanese prisoner Israel held was Samir Kuntar, who was a monster – I don’t recognize anybody’s right to do anything to free him”

how’s Sheikh Obaid and Mustafa Dirani doing, but thing is “Samir Kuntar, who was a monster”

Derfner you’ve gone Full Colon man. Never go”all my enemies are savages and warlike, I am beautiful” Full Colon,

so you can fuck off with your self exculpating fake moralism, you child torturing and murdering piece of shit, or are Israelis not reducible to their acts? the only reason you think we are is because you went “Full Colon”, even kissing up to our corrupt chiefs on the reservations.

Remeber Jibchit and what you did there, theres going to consequences (research it the BBC even made a film) and also from there

SHEIKH ABDEL KARIM OBEID
“On 28 July 1989, Sheikh Abdel Karim Obeid was kidnapped from his house in the village of Jibchit in Southern Lebanon. At 2.00 am Israeli commandos staged a well-planned kidnapping performed by over 30 men which took no more than seven minutes. Sheikh Obeid’s wife, Umm Sajed was tied and beaten up whilst his son Sajed, aged seven was threatened with a gun. A neighbour, Hussain Abu Zaid was killed as Sheikh Obeid and two others, a cousin Ahmed Obeid and friend Ashem Fahs were taken away. Throughout the entire kidnapping, Israeli fighter planes carried out a mock air raid over the village to hide the sound of the helicopters used to take Sheikh Obeid to “Israel”.

Sheikh Obeid’s “crime” was being an outspoken opponent of Israel’s occupation of Southern Lebanon. He was a well-known preacher and represented the views of the Lebanese people.

Sheikh Obeid has been held captive by the Israeli Defence Force, without charge and denied access to friends, family, and lawyers since July 1989. He and Mustafa Dirani, a disabled Lebanese national from the Bekaa valley, who was kidnapped in 1994, are being held on the pretext of gaining more information about an Israeli airforce navigator, Ron Arad, who was shot down during a bombing raid over Lebanon in 1986.

Photos of Sheikh Obeid taken before his kidnapping (left) and after several years of captivity in Israeli Sarafan prison (right).

Not only has he been tortured but remains in solitary confinement. For more information on the conditions detainees face in Israeli prisons please see the photo-account on Khiam Prison. A former detainee of Sarafan has described it as “worse than Khiam”.

Sheikh Obeid is not alone – there are nearly two thousand Muslim and other abductees held by Israel in the same manner.”

The war started in November 1947 by the Zionist aggression is still on, remember? The Zionist horde is the invader. It also is an invader that started a war of aggression against Lebanon –still ongoing, too, and there was no Hizbullah when they started and the Zionist entity is still occupying Lebanon. “Second War” is Zionist aggressor terminology, and it is particularly stupid.

No use counting 2 or 10, either, especially if they are uniformed invader soldiers. Any resistance, no matter if by “monsters” or not, is legitimate. In fact, there is no need here to even invoke any excuse: any attacks against the Zionist entity are perfectly kosher as long as it remains in war.

In real life on March 11 , 1978 a Lebanese special forces unit (if one considers armies operating freely on the territory with the government’s permission to be part of that country’s military) attacked Israel. Israel didn’t start that war. Lebanon did by allowing the PLO to operate in their country.

Same argument for why Afghanistan got invaded by the USA. Or in the reverse direction the claim that the USA didn’t commit an act of aggression with the Bay of Pigs. So not that much work. It is Lebanon that has a crazy doctrine that they can be a state sponsor of a militia and it doesn’t count as part of their army.

Simple question. Up until the air force got involved: Was the United States conducting drone warfare in Pakistan or is the CIA conducting drone warfare in Pakistan? If you believe the USA was doing it then you are agreeing with me.

Nope, it’s Israel which follow its “crazy” or should I say pathological Dahiya doctrine which is basically large scale state terrorism based up “disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations”.

I don’t like the term “terrorism”. I think the 2 most mainstream meanings conflict. Al Jazeera has a cute video and while I’d quibble with the details sums up my feelings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaC_bzgtODY

That being said. Yes. Israel’s policy in general is escalation. There is a general strategy that can be fairly effective of using low violence as constant pressure that Israel has faced since its creation. By engaging in harsh sudden escalations Israel makes that strategy too dangerous to employ against it. I don’t think there is anything crazy about that. It is for example how the United States terrorized Mexico and Canada into the peaceful borders we enjoy today.

JeffB: “I don’t like the term “terrorism”. I think the 2 most mainstream meanings conflict. Al Jazeera has a cute video and while I’d quibble with the details sums up my feelings:”

I know that you need to suggest that there’s some symmetry between Zionist and Palestinians, but there isn’t. And using violence against civilians to teach them or those who rule them a lesson is terrorism and what you actually explicitly support against the Gazans.

JeffB: “That being said. Yes. Israel’s policy in general is escalation.”

In short: War crimes and crimes against humanity.

JeffB: “It is for example how the United States terrorized Mexico and Canada into the peaceful borders we enjoy today.”

That was before international and humanitarian law existed, JeffB. But I’m not suprised that you support this Nazi policy, too, when it comes to “pacifying” others. That’s how backwarded you and Israel actually are.

International law was not invented after World War 2. It existed for thousands of years. Similarly humanitarian law. All that happened after World War 2 was a particular body was created that started amending these timeless codes that humans have evolved over centuries of wisdom willy nilly with current fashion.

JeffB: “It is for example how the United States terrorized Mexico and Canada into the peaceful borders we enjoy today.”

And of course, when it comes to land area, resources, and the immense flow of immigration and all the other things which enable countries to stand the consequences of their actions, the US and ISrael are equals. One is the “United States of America”, the other is “The Jewish State”. ‘A state is a state is a state’, as Emma Lazurus said.

” these timeless codes that humans have evolved over centuries of wisdom “

Those codes which have always done so well by us Jews. Hey, those “timeless codes” left us the most numerous, most unified people on earth, in control of vast swaths of the earth and its resources. We Jews take on all comers!

If the Laws that made it possible to bring the Nazi criminals to justice were Willy Nilly , are you saying those individuals were unjustly convicted and punished???

Depends on which ones to pick an example
Karl Dönitz who was the only head of state indicted clearly took reprisals against prisoners of war — It was established in 1648 prisoners of war should be released without ransom at the end of hostilities. Right of parole was a norm. Exchange was a norm. He was rightfully convicted.

JeffB: ” these timeless codes that humans have evolved over centuries of wisdom “

Those codes which have always done so well by us Jews. Hey, those “timeless codes” left us the most numerous, most unified people on earth, in control of vast swaths of the earth and its resources. We Jews take on all comers!

When Jews played the great game (badly but still played) we were 10% of the Roman empire. When we stopped we went through 1900 years of misery and shrunk to 1/4%. Now that we started again things are going well for the last 70 years. Seems you might have cause and effect backwards.

“When Jews played the great game (badly but still played) we were 10% of the Roman empire.”

When “Jews played the great game” Jewish leaders had some authority over Jews. They could compel them to undertake unpleasent or even suicidal tasks.
Today, neither Judaism, or Zionism, has any method of control (other than begging) over Jews.
A “nation” with no method of control over its people? Sure, that’ll work. They can’t even keep dual-passport Jews in Israel if they decide the Jewish future (and the fate of their own ass) is better elsewhere.

The short term solution to containing Zionist aggression is an enemy that can shoot back, and with might. Unfortunately the Arabs are weak and that’s like blood in the water for Israel. Aggression is the nature of the Jewish supremacist state and the only long term solution is the dismantlement of the Zionist regime in Palestine through democracy and equal rights to all, just like it happened in South Africa. For now we should hope that Hezbollah has indeed amassed enough destructive force as deterrent to contain the Zionist war machine.

Derfner is a strategic idiot. Allowing Iran to have its band of control from Iraq to the med sea will not pacify its urge to destroy Israel. Hezbollah and Iran have been threatening such for decades. And they, unlike the clown in North Korea, Hezbollah is not known for lying or playing foolish strategic games. Israel is not”starting” the next Lebanon war by making sure Iran does not install highly accurate Russian missiles near the shared border (which the UN declared Israel withdrew from years ago.

. There is no appeasement that has ever shown it would work on the fanatical tyrant mullahs nor on the tyrant nasrallah. Israel is being honest that the next time it is attacked by Hezbollah and it’s Lebanese proxies (meaning the feckless Lebanese army and government) along with the full support of Iran Israel will no longer accede to EU or is pleas to’hold back’ and will exercise its right to destroy its enemy until it surrenders unconditionally just like in ww2 and other wars settled by one belligerent being defeated by the other. There may be many Israelis that will be killed by Iran and Lebanon, Hamas and Fatah but it will never be like it was in the past. This was and remains the singular reason that the Zionist state was first imagined and it’s the primary reason it continues to project military strength.
. But you die hard mono weissers can keep on fantasizing about the destruction of Israel and Zionism in your lifetime. If it floats your boat keep at it. Reality takes its own path.

Quit pretending that the israeli government is a legitimate government and democratic. It isn’t and never hasn’t been. It is discussed by ‘die hard mono weissers’ (?) realistically, no fantasy involved. You die hard zio weinies like to pretend israel is anything other than an apartheid state, run by a narcissistic idiot with delusions of grandeur. Reality is something you know nothing about.

One of the great things about the Kurds in Iraq is it gives Israel the opportunity to play the same game against Iran that Iran is playing against Israel with Lebanon. I’ve never understood why the Lebanese Christians and Druze tolerate the Shia dragging them into endless wars with Israel for Syria and Iran’s benefit. And of course the Saudis can help hitting other Iranian assets at the same time.

The big complicating factor is going to be Russia. Israel against Iran in Syria is as a war not too bad. Israel against Russia in Syria I think Israel likely still wins but that one is really rolling the dice, more or less anything could happen. My guess is Russia doesn’t care that much and Israel can diplomatically buy Russia off but that’s what would have me worried.

“I’ve never understood why the Lebanese Christians and Druze tolerate the Shia dragging them into endless wars with Israel “
One reason might be because Israel began bombing Lebanese civilians regardless of religious affiliation long before the Shia in the South unified under the Hezbollah banner. 2006 changed a lot of Lebanese attitudes to Hezbollah which is now a substantial part of the Lebanese Government with (I think) 13 seats in Parliament.
You need to remember that over half of Lebanon is Muslim and many Christians and Druze are not sympathetic to Israel. Civilian bombing can change attitudes dramatically.

Obviously Israel handled Lebanon poorly it went from a relatively friendly country to a hostile one between the 1930s-1990s. I think the key mistake was underestimating the Syrians / Hezbollah in 1983. I think Israel could have had a friendly Christian government if they had protected Lebanon against Syria better. They didn’t Christians left and now it is pretty bad mess. Also leaving without fixing infrastructure damage was a terrible idea. The Syrian refugee crisis and the increasing anti-Iranian hostility might change things in Israel’s favor.

is becoming a more prevalent view. The Israeli / Lebanon relationship going south is a tragedy. I wish there were better polling to figure out if a peace with Lebanon is possible or not in this generation. It’s a peace that could be wonderful for both countries. There is no good reason for this conflict to continue. So one can always hope that the forces at play in the Arab world change the dynamic to make peace possible.

“key mistake was underestimating the Syrians / Hezbollah in 1983”
Hezbollah did not exist as anything but anger in 1983. It was a direct result of Israel’s invasion of 1982:
” It was our presence there (1982) that created Hezbollah” – Ehud Barak.

It is astounding to read what you fellows write. It is as if all that David Bar-Hayim says is so deeply ingrained that you cannot even conceive that Israel might be wrong, that its actions might have consequences.
Israel invaded Lebanon on trumped up charges in 1982 and slaughtered 20-30 thousand indiscriminately. The massacres at Sabra and Shatila massacre were atrocities, huge crimes for which Israel was responsible. What were they thinking? By what possible right did they unilaterally invade a militarily weak sovereign nation? Because the Palestinians were causing them trouble?
Let me remind you that the Palestinians, to this day, legally own most of the land Israelis occupy. They were driven from their homes at gunpoint and forced to become refugees in camps in Lebanon. You pull a stunt like that, trouble is what you get.
You write as if none of that happened.

I doubt whether you can comprehend how bizarre a sentence like:“Obviously Israel handled Lebanon poorly it went from a relatively friendly country to a hostile one between the 1930s-1990s.” sounds to someone who lives in the real World where laws and rights are equally distributed.

Every single situation Israel faces is a direct consequence of its illegal and immoral actions in dispossessing a million indigenous people. Put that right and the vast majority of Israel’s problems will fade – plus it just might survive the next decade without a major War.

Trumped up charges? Come on now. An army operating on Lebanese soil was attacking Israel. That’s an act of war.

The massacres at Sabra and Shatila massacre were atrocities, huge crimes for which Israel was responsible.

The Lebanese army killed Lebanese residents on Lebanese soil. Sure Israel knew about it. But I’d say your sense of responsibility is a bit off.

What were they thinking? By what possible right did they unilaterally invade a militarily weak sovereign nation?

The right to invade attacking nations. Lebanon choose to engage Israel. I agree it was stupid.

Because the Palestinians were causing them trouble?

Yes. The Palestinians army operating on Lebanese soil was causing them trouble. Lebanon never should have permitted such a thing.

Let me remind you that the Palestinians, to this day, legally own most of the land Israelis occupy.

The government of Israel says otherwise. As far as I’m concerned government has right to determine title.

They were driven from their homes at gunpoint and forced to become refugees in camps in Lebanon.

They were driven out of Jordan into Lebanon by the Jordanians because they tried to flip the government.

Every single situation Israel faces is a direct consequence of its illegal and immoral actions in dispossessing a million indigenous people. Put that right and the vast majority of Israel’s problems will fade – plus it just might survive the next decade without a major War.

Those people are mostly dead of old age. If you mean their descendants. Israel has agreed to go 51st in correcting mass deportations from generations ago. Just get 50 other countries involved to put it right and Israel will go next. Let’s start with the USA returning the country to the natives.

“David Bar-Hayim’s influence is in your head. You introduced me to the guy. I’d never heard of him before.”
From what you have posted, your reluctance to criticize and your statement ” God makes different covenants with different people” put the two of you on the exact same page.

“An army operating on Lebanese soil was attacking Israel. That’s an act of war.”
You chaps need to get your stories straight. Ze’ev Maoz, Professor of Political Science at the University of California, and Distinguished Fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel tells us Israel invaded to 1) “Destroy the PLO infrastructure in Lebanon, including the PLO headquarters in Beirut.” 2) “Drive Syrian forces out of Lebanon.” 3) “Install a Christian-dominated government in Lebanon, with Bashir Gemayel as President.” 4) “Sign a peace treaty with the Lebanese government that would solidify the informal Israeli-Christian alliance and convert it into a binding agreement. Sharon said it was an attack by Abu Nidal who was not even a member of the PLO.
What ensued indicates that number 3 was the prime motive. Beirut was laid siege to and bombed for 7 weeks with a massive toll of Lebanese citizens killed and injured.
PLO activity was minimal in the months leading up to the invasion. The Wikipedia article is long but reasonably accurate (emphasis mine):“In his report for the period of 12 December 1980 to 12 June 1981 on UNIFIL activities, the Security Council Secretary General noted that infiltrations into the border zone by Palestinian armed forces had decreased relative to the previous six months.[32] In contrast the IDF had launched various attacks on Lebanese territory often in support of the Lebanese Christian militia. In doing so Israel had violated UN Security Council resolution 425 on hundreds of occasions [paragraph 58]. Where the initiator(s) of attacks could be identified in the report, in 15 cases Palestinian militants were to blame while on 23 occasions the Militia and/or the IDF were the instigators, the latter also being responsible for the most violent confrontation of the period on 27 April [paragraph 52].

In the subsequent period 16 June to 10 December 1981,[33] a relative quiet was reported continuing from 29 May 1981 until 10 July. This was broken when “Israeli aircraft resumed strikes against targets in southern Lebanon north of the UNIFIL area. (The Israeli strikes) led to exchanges of heavy firing between armed elements (Palestinians), on the one hand, and IDF and the de facto forces (Christian Militia) on the other. On 13 and 14 July, widespread Israeli air-strikes continued. Armed elements (Palestinians) fired into the enclave and northern Israel.” Israeli-initiated attacks had led to rocket and artillery fire on northern Israel. This pattern continued in the coming days.

Israel renewed its air strikes in an attempt to trigger a war that would allow it to drive out the PLO and restore peace to the region.[34] On 17 July, the Israel Air Force launched a massive attack on PLO buildings in downtown Beirut. “Perhaps as many as three hundred died, and eight hundred were wounded, the great majority of them civilians.”[35] The Israeli army also heavily targeted PLO positions in south Lebanon without success in suppressing Palestinian rocket launchers and guns. As a result, thousands of Israeli citizens who resided near the Lebanese border headed south. There patterns of Israeli-initiated airstrikes and Palestinian retaliations with attacks on northern Israel are in contrast with the official Israeli version “A ceasefire declared in July 1981 was broken: the terrorists continued to carry out attacks against Israeli targets in Israel and abroad, and the threat to the northern settlements became unbearable.”[36]

On 24 July 1981, United States Undersecretary of State Philip Habib brokered a ceasefire badly needed by both parties,[33] the best achievable result from negotiations via intermediaries, aimed at complying with the decisions of UN Security Council resolution 490. The process was complicated, requiring “shuttle diplomacy between Damascus, Jerusalem, and Beirut, United States. Philip Habib concluded a ceasefire across the Lebanon border between Israel and the PLO. Habib could not talk to the PLO directly because of Kissinger’s directive, so he used a Saudi member of the royal family as mediator. The agreement was oral – nothing could be written down since Israel and the PLO did not recognize each other and refused to negotiate with each other – but they came up with a truce. … Thus the border between Lebanon and Israel suddenly stabilized after over a decade of routine bombing.”[37]

Between July 1981 and June 1982, as a result of the Habib ceasefire, the Lebanese-Israeli border “enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968.”[23] But the ‘calm’ was tense. US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig filed a report with US President Ronald Reagan on Saturday 30 January 1982 that revealed Secretary Haig’s fear that Israel might, at the slightest provocation, start a war against Lebanon.[38]

The ‘calm’ lasted nine months. Then, on 21 April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer while he was visiting a South Lebanese Army gun emplacement in Taibe, Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force attacked the Palestinian-controlled coastal town of Damour, killing 23 people.[39] Fisk reports further on this incident: “The Israelis did not say what the soldier was doing … I discovered that he was visiting one of Haddad’s artillery positions (Christian militia) and that the mine could have been lain [sic] as long ago as 1978, perhaps even by the Israelis themselves”.”

“The Lebanese army killed Lebanese residents on Lebanese soil. Sure Israel knew about it. But I’d say your sense of responsibility is a bit off.”
Israel’s allies, the Phalangists did the wet work while the IDF had Sabra and Shatila under siege. They had to pass through IDF lines to do it. That Israel was responsible is not in dispute – Sharon was forced to resign over the matter.

“The right to invade attacking nations. Lebanon choose to engage Israel. I agree it was stupid.”
We have just seen in the Wikipedia article that the attacking prior to the invasion was done by Israel with very little retaliation from the PLO.

“Yes. The Palestinians army operating on Lebanese soil was causing them trouble. Lebanon never should have permitted such a thing.”
The Palestinians didn’t have an army.

“The government of Israel says otherwise. As far as I’m concerned government has right to determine title.”
International Law says otherwise. Oh, I forgot. A Jew can claim title to a non-Jew’s property right? I guess that goes for a Jewish Government also. Again you show solidarity with David Bar-Hayim.

“They were driven out of Jordan into Lebanon by the Jordanians because they tried to flip the government.”
They were in Jordan because they had been driven out of their homes by murder and rapine perpetrated by Zionists.

“Those people are mostly dead of old age. If you mean their descendants. Israel has agreed to go 51st in correcting mass deportations from generations ago. Just get 50 other countries involved to put it right and Israel will go next. Let’s start with the USA returning the country to the natives.”
Unbelievable coming from one who legitimizes the Zionist project citing a 2,000 year old fictitious expulsion.

JeffB: “An army operating on Lebanese soil was attacking Israel. That’s an act of war … The right to invade attacking nations.”

What is it now, JeffB? Do the Palestinians who were not only attacked in 1967by Israel have the right to “invade” Israel or not? Oh, the plank in your eye …

JeffB: “Lebanon choose to engage Israel.”

Maybe in the Kahane continuum. In this universe Israel chose to “engange” Lebanon.

JeffB: “The government of Israel says otherwise. As far as I’m concerned government has right to determine title.”

Sure, why wouldn’t you support just another Nazi view that an occupier would have the right to determine the title of the territory under its occupation. Is there any Nazi policy you actually don’t support?

JeffB: “Israel has agreed to go 51st in correcting mass deportations from generations ago. Just get 50 other countries involved to put it right and Israel will go next. Let’s start with the USA returning the country to the natives.”

What a dishonest proposal. Even if the other 50 countries would do such thing Israel wouldn’t go next and you know it very well. But how many of these countries commited their crimes against the natives in the post-Nazi and post colonial era? They embody your sense of Justice, JeffB, don’t they? Always try to find someone who may be even worse than Israel to negate its crimes against humanity.

JeffB: “An army operating on Lebanese soil was attacking Israel. That’s an act of war … The right to invade attacking nations.”

What is it now, JeffB? Do the Palestinians who were not only attacked in 1967by Israel have the right to “invade” Israel or not?

We weren’t talking about the Palestinians we were talking about Lebanon. If Lebanon chooses to back the “right” of Palestinian to attack Israel from Lebanon then it is Lebanon attacking Israel. If they choose to say support the attacks that had happened earlier from Jordan then that may be state sponsorship but it is not war.

JeffB: “We weren’t talking about the Palestinians we were talking about Lebanon. If Lebanon chooses to back the “right” of Palestinian to attack Israel from Lebanon then it is Lebanon attacking Israel. If they choose to say support the attacks that had happened earlier from Jordan then that may be state sponsorship but it is not war.”

Lebanon didn’t attack Israel and according to your argument Palestinians have the right to invade Israel.

. I just got an amazing Gucci blazer in Milan airport (less vat and 20%. I know, I’m a selfish goddamn clothes horse while the world burns. I’m sure I’ll pay in the end) and while I used to have a dual US /Israel lapel pin its long since gone out of style and I’ve taken to wearing an emerald with a tiny dangling enamel four leaf clover. that or nothing.

Do I really want to Google this pangloss Dr. guy? Rather remain ignorant for now.

“Hezbollah and Iran have been threatening such for decades.”
Codswallop.
The Iranian administration and Hezbollah have been playing a purely defensive game since and because of their respective nascences (unless you bought the totally bogus “wipe off the map” BS).
Some have argued that David Bar-Hayim’s elucidation of the halachic (if that is the right word) injunctions I posted above does not reflect mainstream Israeli thought but what could better illustrate that barbaric mindset more than the Israeli campaign to inveigle the U.S. into a pre-emptive attack on Iran?
The “fanatical tyrant mullahs” and the “tyrant nasrallah” have demonstrated unbelievable restraint and sanity during this period of what must have been immensely threatening, Israel-inspired, wars against their near neighbors. If the Israeli administration was equally sane it would realize that the Samson option is no longer viable. They played their remaining card in Syria and lost. The enemy is now too close for nukes without unsustainable losses to battle-hardened ground troops on Israeli soil. Their only option is to make peace and that starts with the Palestinians – the option lying idle since 1948.

Israel is the aggressor and there is no denying that, no matter how much schmaltz you add. If the borderless state of israel had chosen years ago to give all palestinians citizenship with equal protection under the law and equal rights, and had never commited itself so stupidly to keeping a population of millions in an open air prison, perpetrate atrocities from the innumerable war crimes to the daily horrors inflicted upon the native population, there would be peace. Alas, the insatiable appetite of the zionist enterprise wants land, wealth and more, more, more. The last thing they want is peace.

If the borderless state of israel had chosen years ago to give all palestinians citizenship with equal protection under the law and equal rights, and had never commited itself so stupidly to keeping a population of millions in an open air prison, perpetrate atrocities from the innumerable war crimes to the daily horrors inflicted upon the native population, there would be peace.

That’s a well-meaning wish. Occupied populations do not forget they are occupied. Even with so-called equal rights.

I’m looking for cases in history of invaded, occupied peoples who gave up the request for their land just because the invaders were nice enough to recognize them some “equal” rights. Except, of course, for those who were successfully made disappear, like the indigenous Americans.
Can’t find many of them. Not even a few.
Clear?

Marnie – It’s not too clear which conflict you are referring to in your comment. In the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, there is no Palestinian demand that Israel give them citizenship of Israel. Moreover, giving them citizenship of Israel (against their will) will not be the formula for establishing peace. The official Palestinian demand is still separate statehood (even in Mr Abbas’ latest UN speech last month, he repeated his demand for Palestinian statehood in the West Bank). The Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel since 1948 always complain that “Israeli citizenship was forced upon us”. The Palestinians oppose the founding of Israel, so the way for establishing peace is not in granting them citizenship in a state that in their view should not have been born in the first place. A pro-Palestinan person should at least take an interest in the Palestinian position.

“The Palestinians oppose the founding of Israel, so the way for establishing peace is not in granting them citizenship in a state that in their view should not have been born in the first place”.

Citizenship in the state of israel, the ‘jewish’ state? Uh, I oppose that and I’m not even Palestinian. I’ve said before that the only solution is one state for all, equal rights for all, one law for everyone and a secular democratic government. Whatever this place will be called, it won’t be called a jewish state.

Marnie – When claiming that if the State of Israel “had chosen years ago to give all Palestinians citizenship with equal protection under the law and equal rights… there would have been peace”, you are suggesting that the Palestinians become citizens of Israel. Why would you now say that you oppose that? The citizenship that Israel can give is, quite obviously, Israeli citizenship.

Probably what you are trying to say is that the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority be disestablished – and in their stead a new, single state be founded. However, the Palestinians seem quite firm in their demand that a Palestinian state be founded on the West Bank. Don’t you think it’s strange to suggest a solution that the Palestinians are not interested in? Obviously, the Israelis are not interested either, but I understand that no one here really cares what the Israelis might want. However, there seems to be an agreement in this site that the interests of the Palestinians are of supreme importance. They are demanding a state in the West Bank, and even the new Hamas Charter also speaks of a West Bank state.

The truth of the matter is that the Palestinians will not agree to end the conflict even in the event of establishing a single state. The reason-of-conflict from their point of view is not the partition of Palestine or the founding of Israel or the refugee issue. The Palestinians protested the Jewish immigration to Palestine, and therefore the acceptance of the Israeli Jews as equal citizens with the Palestinian Arabs in a single state would be an acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism. In other words, it would be an admittance that Palestine is the homeland of the Jews as well. This is still quite impossible in Palestinian society.

The two-state solution as an end-of-conflict proposal would also mean the acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism. So, the Palestinians aspire to achieve a state in the West Bank without agreeing that this would be the end-of-conflict. This is the focus of their efforts. They also demand a separate Palestinian state because they feel that there is international backing for such a demand. They know that demanding the demise of Israel (the one-state solution that you propose) is unacceptable in the world community.

The demise of the state of israel would be a restorative balm to the world. It’s done more harm than anything else. Before you get it all twisted, I’m not talking about the demise of israelis, the demise of the government of israel and a jewish state, replaced by a democratic state for all, no rabbinute, no caliphate. One set of laws for all people. Marry who you want. Public schools that are actually public schools, no ‘religion’ at all. Practice your ‘religion’ in your home or place of worship. You know, something normal.

|| Nathan: … The Palestinians protested the Jewish immigration to Palestine, and therefore the acceptance of the Israeli Jews as equal citizens with the Palestinian Arabs in a single state would be an acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism. In other words, it would be an admittance that Palestine is the homeland of the Jews as well. … ||

It would be an acceptance that Jewish Israelis – but not non-Israeli Jews – are entitled to remain as equals in a single state in geographic Palestine. That does not translate into a validation of any of the evils of Zionism.

|| … The two-state solution as an end-of-conflict proposal would also mean the acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism. … ||

It would be an acceptance that two states represent the least-costly (lives, money, etc.) way to resolve the conflict. That does not translate into a validation of any of the evils of Zionism.
Not necessarily. It wolA two-state solution could simply mean the acceptance that two states

|| eljay: … Not necessarily. It wolA two-state solution could simply mean the acceptance that two states ||

This is junk* I forgot to delete from my comment before the edit period expired.
____________________________
(*The peanut gallery may argue that every one of my comments is junk that should have been deleted. :-) )

eljay – How you understand things is not necessarily how others understand them. The Palestinians have their own political culture – and even though you support their struggle, their culture is foreign to you (well, it’s not that you support their struggle; rather it’s that you’re anti-Israel – and there’s a difference in the two concepts). I am willing to guess that you don’t read books in Arabic. I would imagine that you might not even recognize your own name in Arabic script.

For the Palestinians, the acceptance of the Jews who immigrated to Palestine as equal citizens in a single state is an acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism. The same is true for the two-state solution. The acceptance of Israel as final (i.e. end of conflict) is understood by Palestinians as the acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism – i.e the Jews had a right to come to Palestine (it’s their homeland). Neither solution (one state or two states) will be acceptable to the Palestinians if this is the end of conflict. End of conflict in the Palestinian dictionary is the granting of legitimacy to the Zionist idea.

No doubt. And how you understand things is not necessarily how others understand them.

|| … The Palestinians have their own political culture – and even though you support their struggle, their culture is foreign to you (well, it’s not that you support their struggle; rather it’s that you’re anti-Israel – and there’s a difference in the two concepts). … ||

I support the Palestinian right to justice, accountability and equality in their actual homeland of geographic Palestine. Their culture does not have to be familiar to me in order for me to support that right.

|| … I am willing to guess that you don’t read books in Arabic. I would imagine that you might not even recognize your own name in Arabic script. … ||

Correct on both counts. So what?

|| … The acceptance of Israel as final (i.e. end of conflict) is understood by Palestinians as the acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism … ||

I accept that that’s your understanding of what “Israel as final” means to all Palestinians.

As the map changes, the nuclear option becomes less viable. At present there are numerous, de-centralised battle-hardened groups close to Israel’s borders. If Jordan falls into line, Israel is virtually surrounded. It could possibly prevail in the short term using nukes but they will not help on the ensuing battlefield and with the inevitable backlash in World opinion.

Furthermore, should Israel nuke Tehran, Beirut, or Damascus, consider what the response might be from Pakistan, Russia and the entire Muslim World. It is well-named “The Samson Option”. The U.S. public will balk at Armageddon – not sure about the unpredictable administration.

A much weaker Israel faced Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1967 armed by the Soviets. They faced a similar line up in 1973 and everything started off terribly. Relative to its neighbors Israel is vastly stronger today. Those battle hardened troops got battle hardened fighting ISIS not a first world army. Egypt is now on Israel’s side. Jordan is on Israel’s side. Huge sections of Syria hate Iranian domination. The Alawites lost a not unsubstantial percentage of their population.

The game has changed considerably. In 1967, when Israel made its surprise attack, Egypt’s main forces were bogged down in Yemen and Israel popped its air force before the off. In ’73, only the largest airlift in History saved Israel.
Times change, tactics and armaments change. Israel doesn’t like casualties, has always depended on heavy armour and air strikes. Hezbollah countered the former in 2006 and is now better equipped to deal with the latter plus it now has longer range missiles – can probably reach Tel Aviv – I don’t have much confidence in “Iron Dome”.
The layout of the map today favors asymmetric warfare. Fighting yesterdays wars has been the downfall of just about every army in History.

The airlift didn’t affect ’73. As for the missiles hitting Tel Aviv maybe. What are the size of the warheads? How good are the guidance systems? Same problem Iraq had in the first gulf war. They had tons of missiles they just couldn’t hit much of anything.

As for asymmetric warfare, you were postulating them invading Israel. Nothing asymmetric about that.

Yes JeffB. I’m sure that in 20 years Israel’s state sponsored terrorists will finally stop mass murdering civilians and their destruction campagne and that they will be able to beat at least a singe Hisbollah brigade.

“Fortunately the airlift came just in time for Israeli ground forces to stabilize their positions and eventually turn the tide in the Sinai and Golan Heights. And it was all made possible by an operation that dwarfed the Berlin Airlift ..”
– Walter J. Boyne, Director of the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution

Speaking in Washington three weeks after the cease-fire, Golda Meir said that, “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the material that meant life to our people.”

The material was flown in from NATO bases in Europe. This was a breach of the terms of the treaty. Saving Israel was more important to the US than keeping agreements with its allies or protecting Europe from the Soviets. (The Soviets had no intention of attacking, but this was the only time the US even tacitly acknowledged that.)

Another reason for Iran and NK to be suspicious of agreements with the US.

With the u.s. supplying technology and weapons of major and minor destruction, how could it not be? israel gets all the latest toys and tests them on Gaza – et voila! “battle tested”. All that muscle and no one to bomb! With that much fire power, old blue hair must have one helluva an itchy trigger finger. Anything to take the attention of his little woman’s legal woes, not to mention his own festering sore of an investigation. blue hair and the orange is the new president have so much in common. We’re all doomed.

Since you are European I’m going to shift this a bit to call in context. This is a reoccurring problem with European basis where these basis exist under terms that the USA appears not to agree with. There are approximately 2m NATO troops from European countries. Structurally they are not mobile they aren’t able to deploy outside their borders. The argument made for the pro-European troop position is not “defending Europe” but positioning US forces into that part of the world. Having nearby mobile troop presence is what we get out of it. The USA was funding 213,000 troops in Europe. I think you might want to consider the issue of why.

As for your point about Iran and NK being suspicious I’d agree. The USA has an iffy track record on agreements. OTOH neither of those two are shining stars of honesty and integrity either.

PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi on the blatant bias of the US Ambassador to Israel

“The US Ambassador to Israel has proved once again that he is completely removed from reality. In addition to his long-standing support for Israeli settlements, and after referring to the ‘alleged occupation’ of Palestinian land, he has the audacity to maintain that Israel occupies only 2% of the West Bank and that illegal settlements that carve, annex and steal Palestinian land are part of Israel. This Ambassador has continued to visit illegal settlements and even joined the Israeli celebrations in June marking the occupation of Palestinian land in 1967.

“Not only does the Ambassador break from long-standing US policy, he is also at odds with the international legal, political and moral consensus. His positions are a mirror reflection of the settlers’ ideology in Israel’s right-wing coalition government rather than that of successive Administrations that have claimed to be invested in peace.

“The US Ambassador to Israel cannot impose his alternative facts or realities on an entire people that has been held captive under a brutal occupation for half a century. The occupation exists. Settlements are illegal under international law and constitute a war crime. These facts and realities are not in question.

“If the US Administration is truly committed to peace, it will hold its Ambassador accountable for his consistently outrageous and morally repugnant attitude, actions and statements. Ultimately a decision needs to be made: Is he the US Ambassador to Israel or is he part of the Israeli settlement enterprise?”

“Dr. Ashrawi meets with British Labour Party Parliamentarians: ‘The Balfour Declaration and its colonial legacy should not dictate the policies of the twenty-first century.'”

“PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi met yesterday with a visiting delegation of British Labour Party Parliamentarians which was organized by The Council for Advancing Arab-British Understanding (Caabu) and Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) at the PLO Headquarters in Ramallah. The delegation consisted of Parliamentarians Graham Jones, Julie Elliott, Holly Lynch, Chris Elmore, and Lilian Greenwood, and Caabu Parliamentary and Events Officer Joseph Willits and MAP’s Advocacy and Campaigns Manager Rohan Talbot.

“Dr. Ashrawi expressed her appreciation for the work of both Caabu and MAP and noted their longstanding and valuable efforts in exposing Israeli violations of international law and promoting the rights and freedoms of the Palestinian people.

“She provided a comprehensive overview of Israel’s unlawful unilateralism and draconian measures, in particular its latest expansion of illegal settlements, home demolitions and acts of collective punishment: ‘Such flagrant violations are part of a deliberate policy to destroy the two-state solution and the chances for peace.’

Both parties discussed the most recent political and regional developments, as well as ‘the need for the British government to play a constructive and distinctive role in working to end the military occupation and achieving Palestinian statehood.’ They also reviewed the ongoing process of reconciliation as a means for international Palestinian empowerment.

Dr. Ashrawi affirmed the importance of multilateral engagement based on international law and the involvement of the P5+1 Plus: ‘What is required from the international community is the political will to intervene and to undertake an effective course of action with concrete and specific steps to guarantee freedom and sovereignty for Palestine within a specific and binding timeframe to end the occupation and mechanisms for arbitration, monitoring and evaluation.’”

In the context of the upcoming 100-year anniversary of the Balfour Declaration on November 2, Dr. Ashrawi stressed: ‘The Balfour Declaration presents a painful tragedy for the Palestinian people; the ramifications are still being felt throughout the region. The colonial past should not dictate the policies of the twenty-first century, and the Israeli occupation remains one of its most repugnant expressions. It is time for the British government to apologize for the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people and to carry out a process of rectification, beginning with the recognition of the independent state of Palestine on 1967 boundaries.’”

There’s no doubt that Hizbullah started the 2nd Lebanese War in 2006. Nasrallah himself admitted it and admitted that he had miscalculated. They launched a cross-border attack in which they abducted two IDF soldiers, while launching a rocket barrage -as a diversion- at Israeli civilians. The Olmert government was caught by surprise, off-balance and unprepared. With a corrupt PM, a lousy Chief of Staff, an amateur Defense Minister- the IDF’s performance was disappointing. Neither the government nor the IDF wanted that war at that time.

i’m not sure when israel will attack lebanon again but i’m sure they will. the constant warnings and hasbara drumbeats keeping israelis fearful is part and parcel of setting up the illusion israel, who would be the initiator of the attack, would be acting defensively and preemptively — which would not be the case at all.

the long term neocon plan for the region is to shatter it and break it (sykes-picot) apart. so as long as isis was in ascension in syria and everything is bloody and awful there’s no requirement for israel to start the war, might as well let them all kill eachother. but since the long term plan is that wide swath of land (preferably kurdistan) controlled and supervised by is/us via american bases separating iran from syria then israel’s attack on southern lebanon is almost certainly guaranteed. as isis shrinks and assad liberates more and more syrian land, israel’s aggressiveness towards lebanon will get more pronounced.

i’m not sure how they plan on chopping off sections of iraq, syria, and turkey to make their client state but there will be efforts to occupy hezbollah’s defensive forces on the home front in lebanon while doing the carving up. nothing to do with israel being attacked and targetting and everything to do with eventual israeli expansion. my 2 cents anyway.

the israeli public is easily manipulated, just pawns and grist for the mill. years of fear fear fear programing make them susceptible to almost any lame excuse to start a war.

@ an
You seem pretty easily manipulated yourself. You accept the most discredited revisionist history of the I/p conflict most of which is written by less then the most astute historians. I’m not saying all historical revision is incorrect but you seem to accept all negative narrative about Israel as true and any pro israel narrative add false. Black and white. True believer. Call it what you like but it lacks nuance. I know plenty of Israelis who understand our conflict as very complex nuanced and difficult. But as long as your accusing Israelis of being so easily manipulated

And let’s not even get into how easy the Palestinian people have been manipulated by PA and willingly (vote) by Hamas

The FACT remains that israel is sitting on STOLEN PALESTINIAN PROPERTY, refusing to vacate the premises., and keeps those Palestinians subjugated with its genocidal Apartheid/Hafrada policies.

By the way, what you refer to is NOT a conflict. israel is the aggressor, subjugator, and bully against a defenceless Palestinian population in a totally 1-sided israel-chosen & manufactured series of wars.

|| DaBakr: … I know plenty of Israelis who understand our conflict as very complex nuanced and difficult. … ||

To outsiders, the rapist’s conflict with his victims is pretty black-and-white: Kidnapping, confinement, physical and sexual assault. But to the rapist and his supporters, it’s all “very complex nuances” that outsiders will never understand. :-(

Yes. Complicated. If zionists truly controlled all that you believe and are as evil as you believe wht the hell wouldn’t we have made things really simple in ’67. Why give the mount to the waqf?
Why not just push out or kill thousands of Arabs from all of Judea and Samaria? Why supply Gaza with 1000s of tons of material each week after we completly evacuated,? There were so many ‘simpler’ ways to run a genocide. But no, we zionists have run the most back-asswards genocide the world has ever witnessed. if takes a lot of opinions to screw up something so simple as say, occupying Cyprus, western Sahara, Crimea
. And by the way, I’ll quote Hilel Neuer (one of your favs, naturally) on the subject of ethnic cleansing. “Where are your Jews?. Egypt? Iraq? Lebanon? Iran? Syria? Where are your Jews”?
Nothing apartheid about the Arab world is there?
. Right. It’s ethno supremacist. Evil, illegal and the whole problem would go away for ever if all Jews who weren’t in Israel b4 partition would simply……leave! So simple why didn’t we think of that?

Israel’s strategy of fomenting War has been plain for all to see for decades:

“Israeli strategists have long wished to balkanize the Middle East to make it easier for Israel to dominate the region. These efforts to break up the surrounding nations into smaller units were described by Moshe Sharett in the 1950s, by Yinon Oded in the 1980s, and more recently by the neocons in the Clean Break document. (See this article for more details.)

Those who have followed The Derf over the years, know all too well how many times he got things wrong. If you want examples, just ask. Anyway, The Derf has this condition that has him blurt out anything that enters his mind. It’s called verbal diarreia.

The conclusion of the article is:Our overall conclusion contradicts the current point of view being retailed by some White House and Israeli officials: that Israel’s offensive in Lebanon significantly damaged Hezbollah’s ability to wage war, that Israel successfully degraded Hezbollah’s military ability to prevail in a future conflict, and that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), once deployed in large numbers in southern Lebanon, were able to prevail over their foes and dictate a settlement favorable to the Israeli political establishment.

Just the opposite is true. From the onset of the conflict to its last operations, Hezbollah commanders successfully penetrated Israel’s strategic and tactical decision-making cycle across a spectrum of intelligence, military, and political operations, with the result that Hezbollah scored a decisive and complete victory in its war with Israel.
(bold is my emphasis)

What’s more, Cooke & Perry place Nasrallah’s surprise in context:While Hezbollah had made it clear over a period of years that it intended to abduct Israeli soldiers, there was good reason to suppose that it would not do so in the middle of the summer months – when large numbers of affluent Shi’ite families from the diaspora would be visiting Lebanon (and spending their money in the Shi’ite community), and when Gulf Arabs were expected to arrive in large numbers in the country.

In truth, the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others took the Hezbollah leadership by surprise and was effected only because Hezbollah units on the Israeli border had standing orders to exploit Israeli military weaknesses. Nasrallah had himself long signaled Hezbollah’s intent to kidnap Israeli soldiers after former prime minister Ariel Sharon reneged on fulfilling his agreement to release all Hezbollah prisoners – three in all – during the last Hezbollah-Israeli prisoner exchange.

The abductions were, in fact, all too easy: Israeli soldiers near the border apparently violated standing operational procedures, left their vehicles in sight of Hezbollah emplacements, and did so while out of contact with higher-echelon commanders and while out of sight of covering fire.

The abductions marked the beginning of a series of IDF blunders that were compounded by commanders who acted outside of their normal border procedures.

You aren’t really saying anything different than I was though it may sound like it. The goal of the war was to depose the government of Lebanon and put in place a Christian government. The reason that Israel wanted a Christian government was the current government has hostile. They demonstrated that hostility by allowing an army that repeatedly attacked Israel to operate freely on their soil. You are even agreeing the attacks happened and were fairly regular.

That is not an unprovoked attack. That’s a provoked attack. That is precisely what the USA went to war with Afghanistan for.

As for 1973 the decisive point in the war in the Golan was October 8. In the Sinai October 9.
The airlift supplies started arriving October 14. How could they possible have been decisive? The claim doesn’t make sense the order of events is backwards.

As for international law, there are a lot of exaggerated claims about international law on MW. You are going to have to be more specific where you believe international law doesn’t give states the ability to regulate deed and title to property within their borders.

And yet you still haven’t explained why the UN itself when confronted with your theories of what International Law said found against the Khmer Rouge. I don’t like the UN but you keep asserting a theory of international law that even they considered a crime against humanity.

“But if you look at the tremendous and growing imbalance of power between the two sides”
Not so sure about this, Hamas unguided rockets [7,000?] only managed to blow up the desert. One or two succeeded in causing some damage. Hezbollah’s arsenal has over 100,000 rockets many supplied by Iran and have the all important guidance systems capable of targeting any site in Israel, including Dimona and Ben Gurion Airport, Nazralla has promised to stop Israeli shipping and can destroy the Israeli gas rigs and storage facilities “The Russian anti-ship Yakhont missile is considered to be the best of its kind in the world. Even the most advanced missile interception systems are unable to effectively intercept and destroy it. Israeli analysts believe that, with Yakhont missiles, Hezbollah could threaten Israeli military and civilian shipping as well as Israeli oil and gas rigs in the Mediterranean Sea and even the American Sixth Fleet” http://www.thetower.org/4597oc-report-hezbollah-acquired-advanced-missiles-that-could-threaten-israeli-navy-us-6th-fleet/
The reason the US/Israel want the Iran nuclear deal scrapped has nothing to do with the nuclear issue at all, rather Irans growing conventional powers, which they share with Hezbollah and which Israel fears so much. The ‘arc of resistance’ Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon backed by Russia is indeed growing day by day.

Most of the Israeli population and industry [and economic existance] are within the Tel Aviv Metropolitan area, lets say for arguments sake that area is 100 square miles. It is theoretically possible for Hezbollah to rain 1000 missles per sqaure mile on that area, reducing it to rubble, no doubt Israel could do more damage to its enemies, but is that something Israel wants to learn from experience?

While Israel retains the nuclear option we are trying to forestall the tipping point where without nukes any war with Hezbollah will be a MAD war. That point is extremely close and Iran knows it. But the tyrannical shi’ia mullahs are not the same as the politiburo . Many put their money on the mullahs being’rational’ but that’s up in the air. The IRG maybe less so. MAD has proven successful in the past so I wouldn’t bet on anybody’starting’ a war.

. The most likely scenario is an unpredictable accident, calamity, botched routine exercise or an unhinged plot by any number of radical religious extremists on either side. Too many variables to predict. Nasrallah said himself he never would have executed the kidnap plan had he understood the response. Of course that didn’t stop him from pulling victory out of the agony of defeat. And I mean that in both ways.

syria and Lebanon have no western forces and no populations to hold ransom.unlike israel.any attack on israel will have to take into consideration arab population centres and therein lies the deterrent.the 2006 war in lebanon exposed this weakness of hezbollah unable to defend its homefront.the same goes for syria.
the only way syria and hezbollah can overcome this is the seizing of the jewish population in the north as ransom for a negioated surrender.i have no doubt that hezbollah and syria have planned for this pincer maneuver.winter will be the optimum time as forces on the golan will find it harder to maneuver and the weather could restrict airstrikes.
therefore direct missile strikes on Lebanese and syrian cities will be neccesary as well as the immediate evacuation of the north.
this stalemate does not bode well for southern lebanon and any miscalculation by lebanese forces will result in permanent loss of land south of the litani.
one of the major driving forces will be water resources and 2017 has seen lower than normal levels.
a dam on the lower levels of mt hermon north of the village of Hader in the demilitarized zone is a possibility.

beware the deeds of december and the ides of march.and the idle speculation of an ignoramus

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.